The Rice Question
Jim Rice is a borderline Hall of Famer. He was a feared hitter with a number of impressive seasons, but his career numbers – including 382 HRs – fall a little short of immortality. After rejecting him for 14 consecutive years, however, baseball writers appear poised to vote him in during his last year on the writers’ ballot. But let’s compare his record against several other Hall candidates of the same era who generate little or no support.
Dwight Evans: Rice’s teammate on the Red Sox, Evans has more career HRs than Rice, more runs scored, a higher on-base percentage and nearly as many hits and RBI. Oh, and Evans won eight Gold Gloves to Rice’s zero. But you can’t vote for Evans anymore, since he was dropped from the ballot in 2000 for lack of support.
Now, you may argue, Rice did much better in annual MVP voting, winning the award once. So I would offer for your consideration….
Dave Parker: The 1978 National League MVP, Parker has more career hits, runs and RBI than Rice. Cobra also won three Gold Gloves and two batting titles (none for Rice), and he was a valuable player on two world champion teams. Yet Parker is stuck far down the Hall ballot, winning only about 15 percent support a year.
Now, you may argue, his fine for recreational drug use might tarnish his candidacy even today. So I would offer for your consideration….
Dale Murphy: Winner of two NL MVP awards, Murph had a squeaky-clean reputation and the perfect combination of power, speed and defense in the 1980s. One argument for Rice is that, at his peak, he was perhaps the best in the game. But Murphy can make that claim, too, just in a different league. Even though his career tailed off considerably, Murphy still finished with more homers than Rice. Yet, like Parker, he also barely generates enough support to stay on the ballot each year.
So should the writers change course and vote all four of these guys in? Not necessarily. But it’s clear there is a huge difference of opinion on how to judge the merits of borderline candidates. What’s more, the writers have a perfect out on this one – to turn Rice’s candidacy over to the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee. Much has been made of the fact that this is Rice’s last year on the ballot, but it’s not the end of the road at all. If he again falls short of election, he’ll go to the Veterans Committee, where people who actually played the game can pass judgment on his record. Sure, past Vet committees made some poor decisions. But they’ve set pretty high standards now for a few years. Sending them Rice, another borderline candidate, sends a message that the writers haven’t lowered their standards – and that the veterans can play an increasingly vital role for an important, and growing, group of players.
5 comments:
First time I have read this blog...nice job! Just wanted to talk a bit about MVP shares as being a good method to evaluate a player without delving into stats, but also in comparing the election of a player say 30 years ago when we didn't have the advanced statistical methods that we have today.
Looking at the MVP shares leaderboard, most are in the Hall or will be.
Comments?
Thanks for your comment, Michael! Those MVP shares are a great resource, thanks to Baseball-reference.com. Mr. Rice does fare pretty well there. Despite all of our obsession with statistics, it will be increasingly difficult to compare players from different eras of "modern" baseball. That's one way to do it!
Rice's election does put HoF voters on a slippery slope (okay, slipperier than before) when it comes to looking solely at hitters' numbers as the lone criterion for election. But Rice has been a cause celebre among baseball writers -- primarily Peter Gammons -- for years. Enough other writers finally heard the drumbeat.
I don't see that happening soon for Dave Parker: he wasn't that well liked among writers. And Dewey Evans was seen as a solid hitter and above-agerage fielder, but how many All Star games did he play in?
Much like Don Mattingly's, Murphy's career is seen mostly in terms of a three- or four-year stretch in which he was an MVP-caliber player. But the suddenness with which his career (and Mattingly's) dropped off, I think, leaves voters with the impression that Murphy COULD'VE been HoF material, if only ...
Dawson, I think, will benefit most from Rice's election. You can hear that drumbeat of support from guys like Gammons, Jason Stark, etc. And those guys influence other voters. Plus, Dawson (arguably) is best remembered as a Cub, which makes him all the more lovable.
Would love to explore this more in future comments.
HoF embraces greatness first, longevity/grinders 2nd.
Excerpts from Wiki on Rice:
"
He is one of only two AL players ever to lead his league in both triples and home runs in the same season, and he remains the only player ever to lead the major leagues in triples, home runs and RBIs in the same season. His 406 total bases that year were the most in the AL since Joe DiMaggio had 418 in 1937, and it made Rice the first major leaguer with 400 or more total bases since Hank Aaron's 400 in 1959. This feat wasn't repeated again until 1997, when Larry Walker had 409 in the NL. No AL player has done it since Rice in 1978, and his total remains the third highest by an AL right-handed hitter, behind DiMaggio and Jimmie Foxx (438 in 1932)."
"Rice could hit for both power and average, and currently only nine other retired players rank ahead of him in both career home runs and batting average: Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams."
Quickly the bottom line
G HR RBI Avg OBP Slg
Rice 2089 382 1451 .298 .352 .502
Murph 2180 398 1266 .265 .346 .469
Evans 2606 385 1384 .272 .370 .470
Parker2466 339 1493 .290 .339 .471
Murphy had a 6 yr stretch to rice's 11 of dominance. Evans was an awful hitter early in his career. and parker does deserve consideration, but his numbers are just short.
Post a Comment